I am the Founder & CEO of Ideasicle, a virtual marketing-ideas company pioneering the "Expert Sourcing" model. Prior to founding Ideasicle, I worked at some of the most creative advertising agencies in the world, including Wieden & Kennedy, Goodby Silverstein & Partners, Mullen and Arnold Worldwide. It was at these agencies that my passion for ideas (having them and witnessing their birth from others) was inspired and cultivated. It's also where I found my small pool of "Experts" for Ideasicle. I am a guest lecturer at Boston University, an agency pitch consultant on the side, and speak at marketing conferences around the country about the changing marketing landscape in the context of creativity and idea generation.

CBS Bans SodaStream Ad. Where's The Outrage?

CBSbanned SodaStream’s Super Bowl spot because, apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.

Please pause and read that sentence again.

I am shocked that CBS would ban a spot for being too competitive. But I’m even more shocked that the advertising world isn’t up in arms about it.

The media’s job isn’t to judge.

SodaStream has a product that could be wildly disruptive to the soda industry, if successful. As in, the “automobile” to the soda industry’s “buggy whip.” If SodaStream takes off, Coke and Pepsi would have a lot to worry about, for sure. But isn’t that what progress is all about?

CBS is protecting its relationship with Coke and Pepsi. Those two brands spend big bucks on the Super Bowl and on the network, in general. I get it. But all CBS would have to do, if Coke and Pepsi put the pressure on, is say, “Hey, we’re just the unbiased middle man here. It’s not up to us what competitors of yours say about you.” There’s no need for the medium to have a say in the message.

Competitive battles should be fought in the marketplace.

If the SodaStream product is a better “soda idea” than Coke and Pepsi, then shouldn’t it be given a fair shot within any medium it decides to risk its dollars? If it’s not a better idea, the market will decide its fate, not CBS. But even beyond that obvious argument, it’s in CBS’s, and all media’s, interest to encourage unbridled competition. The more threatened a Coke and Pepsi feel, in this case, the more likely they are to launch new campaigns specifically targeting the threat. And that’s more money pouring into the media, not less. But Coke and Pepsi won’t do that now (or are less likely to), because CBS intervened, took the pressure off, and effectively sided with Coke and Pepsi.

I contacted Alex Bogusky, Person Of Interest with Fearless Creative, and creator of the SodaStream ad, and, no surprise, he agrees. “We get that Coke and Pepsi spend billions verses SodaStream’s millions but that’s a hard decision to rationalize. Especially when there is such a huge environmental advantage to the SodaStream model.”

No more ‘Davids’ allowed.

I also called veteran creative director, David Baldwin, of Baldwin&, to get his take with CBS’s move. He nailed it. “That’s a disturbing turn of events. No more Davids allowed I guess at CBS.”

And it’s so unnecessary. If CBS had simply played the “unbiased middleman” card in this case, there’s very little Coke and Pepsi could have done. They certainly would not have pulled their Super Bowl ads. Instead, Coke and Pepsi would have been forced to retrench and figure out a marketing way to solve this SodaStream problem and not a mafia way (I mean that metaphorically, of course).

Now, CBS has essentially opened the door for its biggest advertisers to forever complain about those “annoying little competitors” that are trying to steal share. “Take them off the air. Make them stop!” is what they will scream. “You did it for Coke and Pepsi.”

And it won’t only be CBS. All media will have to bear the burden of this biased, un-capitalistic, anti-progress, move. But, guess what? This isn’t the first time in recent months CBS has overplayed its hand.

Add the fact CBS banned the Dish Network “Hopper” and now we’ve got ourselves a trend.

You heard about this, I’m sure. CBS forced the staff at CNET to change the winner of “Best In Show” at CES this year because, presumably, the technology which had already won the honor, if successful, would mean less money for CBS. It was Dish Network’s “Hopper” technology which allows viewers to skip entire advertising pods with one click. Forbes Contributor, Erik Kain, wrote a great expose on this scandal recently, “CBS Forced CNET To Drop Its ‘Best Of CES 2013′ Winner, The Dish Hopper.”

So, we can now see what drives “CBS Standards & Practices.” It’s not freedom to express. It’s not truth in advertising. It’s not liberal causes (as Bogusky intimated, SodaStream is far better for the environment because it reduces trash). No, what drives CBS is money.

Another advertising expert I called was John Elder, President of Heat Advertising. He put CBS’s intentions this way, “If they are willing to make a public move like this involving a third party, what else is happening inside CBS that we never hear about?”

Indeed.

Again, where is the outrage?

Here’s mine. As one last act of personal defiance, below is the banned ad. I hope it gets a billion hits.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

upto I looked at the receipt 4 $8827, I didn’t believe …that…my mom in-law realey bringing home money parttime on-line.. there uncles cousin had bean doing this for less than seventeen months and a short time ago repaid the loans on their cottage and bought a top of the range Buick. I went here…….. BIT40.ℂOℳ

I quit working at shop-rite and now I make $65-85 per hour! I’m working online! My work didn’t exactly make me happy so I decided to take a chance on something new… after 4 years it was so hard to quit my day job but now I couldn’t be happier. Here’s what I do, Rich45.ℂOM

As long as you include ALL mainstream media (including Fox, which despite being the largest is apparently not ‘mainstream’ according to most conservatives) then I agree 100%.

Of course, I also think that this should apply beyond simple marketing; it should apply to politics as well. Why do we have “Presidential Debates” that refuse to allow third parties to join? Why do we have laws that make it more difficult for third parties to win elections? Shouldn’t the best politics win out, without needing to game the system?

It should also apply to health-care, and education, and well–everything. If the only way that your position, your idea, your product can win is to prevent competition–well, it’s really not very good, is it?

I agree. It’s not right for CBS to ban the ad. But let’s take a look at our current culture for some perspective Our government is doing everything it can to take over our lives. Perhaps CBS is just trying to fit into the American way of life. The big get bigger and the little get shunned. However, the little guy is generally faster and more creative and as you stated, the market will decide. Not CBS. Not the government. There’s a revolution coming. I hope I’m still alive for it.

When you work hard for what you have…extremely hard…and then little by little it’s slowly taken away, yes, I don’t think revolution is too strong a word. I don’t have a college education and wasn’t born with a silver spoon in my mouth. I’ve built what little I have through hard work and determination. In the meantime, I’ll continue to work hard. Even harder than before. Because now I’m working for more than just my family. The entitlement crowd has to get their piece of my pie as well. But eventually those of us fighting this battle will fight back.

Great, Americans are now more aware than they were a decade ago. They were also aware a few years after the invasion of Iraq that there were no WMD’s. Sorry, but awareness and consciousness has no correlation with action taken or at least not the action that most would expect. There will be no revolutions in this country, a revolution requires that people have no other choice but to revolt. Today, we are fat and have more than enough entertainment to get us all through unemployment.

What did CBS say about it? Lots of attribution from others including you about their motivation here, but no mention of comment from them. You didn’t even quote their reason, you just paraphrased “…apparently, it was too much of a direct hit to two of its biggest sponsors, Coke and Pepsi.” What does that even actually mean, “too much of a direct hit”?

To put a twist on another quote you used, if you are willing to make a public move like this involving a third party, what else is happening inside Forbes that we never hear about?

From Daily Beast: “Instead, CBS will air an older SodaStream ad, which shows (unbranded) soda bottles disappearing as consumers carbonate their own beverages.”

It seems CBS objected to the use of Coke and Pepsi logos in an ad promoting Sodastream, not to any ad with which Sodastream competes with deep pocketed competitors. Broadcasters object to ads in bad taste all the time. I think they could have let this one go, it is mildly amusing, but the author here either did not bother getting to the bottom of the story or willfully ignored the nuance in order to get some page views from people who are all too ready to believe anything whenever a a big corporation or “mainstream media” is accused of doing something evil. Either way it is shameful, but par for the course in Forbes blogs.

Alan, thanks for your comment. I had read in multiple secondary reports (mostly in the advertising trades) that CBS had blocked the ad because of the fact it directly and overtly calls out Coke and Pepsi. Due to the high interest in this blog post, I plan to attempt getting a more formal response from CBS.

Thank you, Alan, I’m glad I read your comment because the neglect to interview someone at CBS just validates the reason why journalism fails us in so many ways (see my comments on the article about Java in this issue). Corporations and media are in bed together and this article serves to exemplify that fact.

As most of us know, corporate advertising dollars are the source of funding the majority of mass media (read CBS). So the reporters in turn are discouraged (or forbidden) to criticize them for fear of losing that income stream. It’s a huge conflict of interest, there no doubt about that. Back in the days of honest reporting, the advertising department was held harmless and would not bow to the news and editorial staff. But this was before the media belonged to the conglomerates that own them today.

I worked for daily newspaper some 30 years ago, and we would rather lose advertising than compromise the integrity of the news. These days, with so much more information available (primarily from the internet) that these huge media outlets are losing (or have lost) the confidence of the mass market, and it’s only a matter of time that they will cease to exist. The print media are the first to suffer this “revolution” and, indeed, major broadcast news have been following suit. They’ve been trimming their staff, and closing down bureaus – but these moves only slow their inevitable demise.